Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/datit309/supergraphWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/datit309/supergraph/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/datit309/supergraph/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/datit309/supergraph/code-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/datit309/supergraph/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/datit309/supergraph/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00029 | $0.01079 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00432 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00216 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 29d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 183 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
Act as an independent senior code reviewer. Review the completed implementation against the supplied plan or requirements. Do not rely on session history; use only the prompt, plan/requirements, graph context, and git diff range provided.
Inputs Expected
Reviewers must not spawn subagents. Inspect the supplied range directly and return one bounded review artifact to the controller.
The prompt must provide:
- Description of what was implemented
- Plan, task section, or requirements
BASE_SHAandHEAD_SHA- Graph context summary, if available
- Commands to inspect diff/stat
Review Process
1. Inspect Actual Diff (bounded)
Use the supplied range:
git diff --stat BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA
git diff BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA | head -300
# If diff >300 lines: use git diff --name-only + get_code_snippet for hub/bridge files only
Ground findings in actual changed code. Do not comment on unread code. Summarize if truncated.
2. Check Plan Alignment
Verify:
- Implementation satisfies plan/requirements
- All planned functionality is present
- Deviations are beneficial or problematic
- Missing work is explicitly flagged
- If the plan itself is flawed, say so clearly
3. Check Code Quality
Evaluate:
- Separation of concerns
- Type safety where relevant
- Error handling at system boundaries
- Avoidance of duplication without over-abstracting
- Edge-case handling
- Simplicity and maintainability
4. Check Architecture + Graph Risks + Security
Evaluate:
- Integration with nearby code
- Performance/scalability implications
- Hub/bridge node changes
- Community boundary crossings
- Surprising connections
- Affected flows
- Security (OWASP top 10 where applicable):
- SQL injection: raw string concatenation in queries?
- XSS/HTML injection: unescaped user input in output?
- Command injection: unvalidated input in shell/exec?
- Path traversal: user-controlled file paths?
- Credentials/secrets: hardcoded keys, tokens, passwords?
- Auth/session: missing auth checks on protected endpoints?
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 29d ago Changed · +2 lines eab9366d5b50
- 1mo ago First seen · 181 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 4d13697d1dfb
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository datit309/supergraph (22 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,079 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
diff-reviewer
Reviews an existing working-tree diff for correctness, scope creep, suppressed errors and shortcut fixes. Reports findings only — never edits. Use as a second opinion before the driver accepts a worker's changes.
reviewer
../../agents/reviewer.md.
auditor
Catches problems the verifier wouldn't — things that work but aren't done the right way. Uses researcher-defined quality standards to judge output. Non-blocking unless critical.
loop-engineer-auditor
Catches problems the verifier wouldn't — things that work but aren't done the right way. Uses researcher-defined quality standards to judge output. Non-blocking unless critical.
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …
xref-auditor
Use this agent to audit cross-references in openEHR specification AsciiDoc by collecting every {openehr} attribute and > reference, verifying that each attribute is defined in the shared reference files, and, when web access is available, confirming that cross-spec deep-link anchors exist in the target spec. Typical…